One guy is not a convincing argument, sorry. Not when the bulk of scholars place them on the right or possibly a radical centre position.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Far-right Dutch Politician Finds Islam
- Thread starter kobashi100
- Start date
- Status
One guy is not a convincing argument, sorry. Not when the bulk of scholars place them on the right or possibly a radical centre position.
He said that the ideology falls clearly within the right, I used it as a source to rebut that assertion. I thought it was pretty obvious if you were making a bona fide attempt at following the argument.
One guy? Yes Hayek is one guy, but as someone who is considered a champion of the right, his opinion in looking at an ideology and saying that's completely alien to what he believes in holds some weight.
curlyfriski
Banned
There's a reason for that.
I love how almost exclusively, Americans of a conservative bias, try and tell everyone that 'bbububu Hitler was left wing!'
>.<
I guess because the Democratic peoples republic of North Korea says it is Democratic, peoples and a republic, they are super terrificly pro human rights and very much in favour of the ballot box ^_^
>.<
I guess because the Democratic peoples republic of North Korea says it is Democratic, peoples and a republic, they are super terrificly pro human rights and very much in favour of the ballot box ^_^
..... What?
You do realise that makes no sense at all even slightly or abit? Its not this 'all or nothing' proposition. Many 'conservative' parties have liberal policies and visa versa, that doesnt mean that they are not conservative...
For someone who finds 'labels' problamatic, you are stretching sooooooo much to fit fascism into a label you prefer it to have over the wildly accurate one that it is given. (Mostly because I assume you belong to the 'right' and prefer the bad stuff to go to the 'left'.)
Fascism is a deeply conservative philosophy because it is, in essense, the most reactionary philosophy.
I'm not Conservative. I'm not American. I'm also only biased in the same sense that everyone else is biased towards their own political persuasions. I consider myself a reasonable person, open to persuasion and have done my best to present my arguments in a cordial manner, with my reasoning explained. I would prefer it you didn't make assumptions about me in order to disregard my positions and actually engage with me, as others in this thread have done instead of hurling pejoratives my way.
curlyfriski
Banned
Well, this is of course an assumption, but based on what you've posted in here I think you would fall under what a lot of people consider the conservative banner.
Mate, you started by asserting the only real Right position is libertarianism. That's not very open.
Well, I put 'almost exclusively' because from my experience it is always American conservatives (Including libertarians) who put forward the argument that 'Hitler wasnt right wing!'
I cant persuade you of something that you are unwilling to see.
I can definitely see why people might label me as such but I'm not a real conservative. I'm broadly speaking a moderate classical liberal, but I've got a fairly radical streak (I for example want to increase the number of representatives in the Australian Parliament to 500, I want states to appoint judges to the High Court (7 Judges, 1 per state and the CJ to be appointed by the federal government. I want a reversal of the engineers case and constitutional entrenchment of fundamental rights).
I followed it back to the post where you claimed that "marxism and fascism are two left-wing ideologies". That's the controversial contention here.
Well, I'll spell out my logic. I think that classical liberalism is right wing. Classical liberalism is the political philosophy that emphases the individual above the state. Practical policies that emanate from this philosophy are representative government, the rule of law, limited government and individual rights.
Authoritarianism and corporatism are ideologies that are fundamentally incompatible with this political tradition whose tenants are based on rights and therefore I can not in good faith classify them under the same umbrella. We're talking about a divide that is wider than what most people would characterise the difference between the modern left and right in most western democracies. In light of this, I think that the labels that apply are inherently problematic.
Interesting, but wrong. Sorry. That is some revisionist history if I ever saw it.
How? :/
Classical liberalism is not the only position on the political right. You have made the same mistake as before when I said you were wrong. Classical liberalism is A form of the right, it is not the only form. Anything that contradicts classical liberalism is not automatically left. It may be further right, it may be a different type of right.
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that classical liberalism is the only right. I said that I couldn't classify authoritarianism and classical liberalism in the same political umbrella because they were worlds apart. I never said that authoritarianism was automatically left as a result. My entire argument is that these labels are inherently problematic.
You being unable to do something does not mean it is not so.
Your conception of left and right is completely wrong, and its overly simplistic.
Its not 'collectivism v freedom'. I mean to most people, I know libertarians see the world in odd ways.
Classical liberalism being associated with the 'right' is a modern phenomenon too, it was traditionally left wing/progressive, the reason its changed, and that conservatives claim to champion it, is that it is a reaction to the 'new' liberalism.
Your conception of left and right is completely wrong, and its overly simplistic.
Its not 'collectivism v freedom'. I mean to most people, I know libertarians see the world in odd ways.
Classical liberalism being associated with the 'right' is a modern phenomenon too, it was traditionally left wing/progressive, the reason its changed, and that conservatives claim to champion it, is that it is a reaction to the 'new' liberalism.
Only because you are making them problamatic. You are taking your position, and current time frame, and extrapolating it backwards and putting 'your' view onto history. Thats not how it works. You have to look at it from 'that' era, and what was going on then.
And yet you want to place other things within the left? No, you can't get around the fact that you have asserted that because something conflicts in some way with classical liberalism, it is of the left.
You've kind of proved my point. You say that a political tradition has jumped from one side of the political spectrum to another, despite the content of that tradition staying static. You say I'm oversimplifying the labels. They're labels, they're supposed to be simple, their simplicity and broadness is what makes them problematic in the first place, yet they're so damn broad and simple that they've become almost meaningless. I've described fascism as left, Dead Man has described socialism as right and now we have political traditions jumping from one side to another. Sounds like two solid useful labels to me.
I dont think its that way at all. Classical liberalism is still left wing. That the right now champions it is irrelavent, when conservatism is the main 'force' of a political spectrum, by its nature it will be reactionary, because that is what conservatism is by definition.
The problem comes when you try and state that 'since the right now supports individual rights and freedoms' (Which is itself contested) 'then fascism, which did not do that, must belong to the left'.
The terms left and right themselves arent set in stone. But generally, the fascism movement was a movement supported by the right wing parties, the conservatives and the capitalists, of the time. Thats why its classed as a 'right wing' ideology. Today, fascism wouldnt fit under the 'left' either.
You are the one trying to pry a label onto a cause for political reasons. Its not contested in the slightest in academia or amongst... the general populace, fascism is a right wing ideology. Communism was a left wing one. That they shared some facets is only proof that the extremes of both sides of the spectrum tend to blur together, because its more of a circle then a line.
The idea that the 'right is about personal and economic freedoms' is wrong. As is the fact that you seem to draw from that, that anything counter to that must belong to the 'left'.
Labels are not meant to be simple, but they are not 'what you chose them to be at any certain time'. And your decision, that 'right = x' is wrong.
For meaningless propositions, why are you so adamant that everyone else is wrong? Why does it matter that it is labeled as a 'right wing' ideology? It says more about you and your own insecurities then it does anything else.
The problem comes when you try and state that 'since the right now supports individual rights and freedoms' (Which is itself contested) 'then fascism, which did not do that, must belong to the left'.
The terms left and right themselves arent set in stone. But generally, the fascism movement was a movement supported by the right wing parties, the conservatives and the capitalists, of the time. Thats why its classed as a 'right wing' ideology. Today, fascism wouldnt fit under the 'left' either.
You are the one trying to pry a label onto a cause for political reasons. Its not contested in the slightest in academia or amongst... the general populace, fascism is a right wing ideology. Communism was a left wing one. That they shared some facets is only proof that the extremes of both sides of the spectrum tend to blur together, because its more of a circle then a line.
The idea that the 'right is about personal and economic freedoms' is wrong. As is the fact that you seem to draw from that, that anything counter to that must belong to the 'left'.
Labels are not meant to be simple, but they are not 'what you chose them to be at any certain time'. And your decision, that 'right = x' is wrong.
For meaningless propositions, why are you so adamant that everyone else is wrong? Why does it matter that it is labeled as a 'right wing' ideology? It says more about you and your own insecurities then it does anything else.
Haha, sure, I guess. I was born into a rather devout muslim family and grew up in an environment filled with muslim immigrants. But as I got older, I started having some heavy doubts about Islam as an ideology, not only because I found the "evidence" for it incredibly shaky and I wasn't fond of all the bigotry and the hateful garbage that the religion preaches.
I lost my faith around the same time I finished high-school, and unfortunately, my family managed to find out. I've been pretty much entirely alienated from them ever since and I've been forced to make it on my own(thank raptor jesus for the welfare state, or I would've been fucked). Soooo... again, I've got good reason to be salty about Islam!
Most PVV voters, however, don't really have their own little sob story about why they hate islam. In fact, a huge swath of their voters live in the southern parts of Holland and in villages, which tend to have pretty damn low muslim/immigrant population.
I'd like to send you a bill then, for my time.
This is why we don't get into discussions about politics, but rather political events.
Like I said I've tried to present my arguments in a clear non-personal manner and have tried to have a cordial debate with people in here and you seem more interested in making personal attacks than debating the actual topic. I'm quite disappointed as I'm merely trying to have a debate.
scar tissue
Banned
.
Religion and right-wing politics go together like peanut butter and jelly.
Islam is the least progressive of the three religions, so I can definitely see the appeal.
Its just generally when people enter this debate, its more about their own beliefs, and a need to not associate them with anything 'bad'. And a need to label most bad things as things that happen with the 'others', the other side, the other faction... etc...
The fact is though, I do think it is personal, because it tends to be only a small slice, of mostly conservatives and libertarians, who feel the need to enter this debate. A debate most people dont bother with because its completely counter factual.
You cant say 'labels are meaningless' then stress over why this label belongs to this thing. And why your label shouldnt be tarnished by it.
Because labels are not meaningless, they have meaning otherwise they wouldnt exist, and by trying to change the label on one thing to another, you are doing something with alot of meaning. And you cant assign your own meaning to things and pretend the commonly accepted meanings dont make sense. Your own sense of the labels dont make sense, because you chose to dissassociate your label from anything counter to your own personal beliefs.
You also cant say that 'my opinions dont matter'. Or that it isnt personal. You cant de-personalise labels, im not making personal attacks, I am saying that your own personal beliefs are influencing your argument. Just like mine do my arguments. Its not an attack, its common sense.
Its akin to the 'no true scotsman' argument. Just because you dont view the right that way, doesnt mean that isnt what encompasses the right. Your own view may be wrong. And in this case it is, you have a simplistic view of what the 'right' is, because you define it simply as 'classical liberalism'.
Basically, by trying to change the label of something to something else, you are doing something intrinsically personal, because its those personal reasons that drive you to find the meaning of the label inadequate.
That this is written by the guy who said that classic liberalism is still left-wing is quite puzzling.
It's pretty obvious that fascism and most extreme right wing ideologies are economically centrist, that's why economical right wingers have a hard time understanding the connection. At the same time left wingers don't seem to understand that this is one of the main criticisms of the classification from the right.
I would say that most socialistic and liberal ideologies have far less in common with fascism than both communism and social conservatism. However, you could easily place those ideologies in a modern left-right wing scale without too much controversy (with the exception of you it seems like, as I have never seen anyone else seriously argue the case).
RustyNails
Member
Someone clarified this after the earlier article. Apparently Muslims consider everyone to be born Muslim, so when they convert they are actually "reverting" to their natural state.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Better than coming out a sinner automatically, I guess.
Ah. Seems a bit cheeky, but okay.
- Status